hi all,
the current example for when 'there simply is no text that can do justice
to an image' appears to contradict the advice given in WCAG 2.0
current HTML 5 example
(http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-embedded.html
):
"Sometimes there simply is no text that can do justice to an image. For
example, there is little that can be said to usefully describe a Rorschach
inkblot test.
<figure>
*<img src="/commons/a/a7/Rorschach1.jpg">*
<legend>A black outline of the first of the ten cards
in the Rorschach inkblot test.</legend>
</figure>"
The advice in the example appears to contradict the advice from WCAG 2.0: [
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#F65>
]
*"Sometimes content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience* that words cannot fully capture. Examples include a symphony
performance, works of visual art etc. For such content, text alternatives at
least identify the non-text content with a descriptive label and where
possible, some descriptive text. If the reason for including the content in
the page is known and can be described it is helpful to include that
information. "
So an alt text could be provided that gives some details "some descriptive
text" about the visual characteristics of the inkblot that could help a
vision impaired user to understand the image.
example:
<figure>
<img src="/commons/a/a7/Rorschach1.jpg" *alt="A vertically symmetrical shape
that has an intricately curved outline, the body of the shape is a solid
colour (black) "*>
<legend>A black outline of the first of the ten cards
in the Rorschach inkblot test.</legend>
</figure>
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html